R v Perry [1999] NSWCCA 315

R v Perry [1999] NSWCCA 315

The concurrent sentences of eighteen months penal servitude to be served by periodic detention were manifestly inadequate because the respondent's planned and repeated sexual offending against young boys was objectively grave and required greater weight to deterrence and denunciation. Although the respondent had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, rehabilitated, and had favourable subjective circumstances, periodic detention was too lenient; applying totality and allowing for double jeopardy on the Crown appeal, the respondent was re-sentenced to an overall sentence of three years penal servitude.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Appeals allowed; earlier sentences quashed; respondent re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'periodic Detention' 'totality' 'delay and Rehabilitation' 'double Jeopardy on Crown Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'periodic Detention' 'totality' 'delay and Rehabilitation' 'double Jeopardy on Crown Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the concurrent sentences of eighteen months penal servitude to be served by way of periodic detention were manifestly inadequate for the respondent's offences against young boys." 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to intervene and re-sentence on a Crown appeal.' 'What sentence should be imposed having regard to totality, double jeopardy, time already served on periodic detention, guilty pleas, rehabilitation and subjective circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The concurrent sentences of eighteen months penal servitude to be served by periodic detention were manifestly inadequate because the respondent's planned and repeated sexual offending against young boys was objectively grave and required greater weight to deterrence and denunciation. Although the respondent had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, rehabilitated, and had favourable subjective circumstances, periodic detention was too lenient; applying totality and allowing for double jeopardy on the Crown appeal, the respondent was re-sentenced to an overall sentence of three years penal servitude.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; earlier sentences quashed; respondent re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['The appeal in each case is allowed.' 'All the sentences earlier imposed are quashed.' 'In relation to the indictment considered on 19 February 1999, the respondent is sentenced on each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh counts to concurrent sentences of penal servitude for three years...